chiasm

This is post #1200 on this blog, which has been up and running for more than six years.

There have been periods of “fasting” from writing for almost a month or so. Other times, I wrote nearly every day. I’m pretty sure that I spend too much time tending this site, in the grand scheme of my little life. On the other hand, I feel spiritually and emotionally energized by thinking and writing about significant matters, so I hardly think it would be a good idea for me to stop just yet. So, onward. . . . If you only have time to read a little, read the actual meditation (Part B).

I had noticed I was approaching #1200 a couple weeks ago. Then, without thinking about the number anymore, I finished up 3-4 posts, including this one, and scheduled them all to be published on future dates.

Thinking back a year and a half . . . as a bibliophile (not a numerologist), this is a significant number — more so than #1000, which I had specifically orchestrated in April 2013 to end up in that position, and I’d also noticed #777. It’s kinda cool that this one ended up being #1200 without any specific, advance thought about the milestone.

Why is it appropriate that this one is #1200? Because it combines some of my areas of great interest and effort: 1) rhetorical and exegetical studies in ancient scripture and 2) worship, teaching, and leadership among Christians. I suppose it’s appropriate, too, that I publish this one early on a Sunday morning. If you’re a) feeling rushed and b) are responsible for some aspect of worship leadership this morning, please skip to the middle of this post — the actual meditation — and feel free to use it somehow.

Part A

Sometimes I type in essay titles that simply describe or summarize the content. Sometimes the titles foreshadow a line or thought or wording to come later in the essay. Sometimes, the slugs or titles are designed to attract interest because they’re different. This title is mostly the last type, although I suppose it attains to the other motivations, too.

I was about to offer a wager that no other blog this month — or this year, for that matter — would have this title. I decided to Google it, and got five results: three bits about some Mormon malarkey, and two more interesting documents related to chiasm and secular poetry. Basically, I think I’ve proven my point, not finding any blogs with this title and only five marginally related results, so the bet is off.

Aside: if you don’t use quotation marks (guaranteeing that the results will be exact replications) around the expression, you get 381,000 results, and it’s worth noting that chiasms appear in Psalms and other meditative literature.

All the above was just so much prefatory hot air. Here is the actual chiastic meditation:

Part B

My Lord, You livedso that You could ultimately die.

Now, You ask us to believe

in Your awful, wonderful cross –

that astounding, yet terrible instrument

that we accept as necessary and grace-filled …

so we can diein order to live eternally with the Lord of all.

– bc, from communion meditation for Sheridan church, 11/9/14

Part C

The “chiasm”² is so named because it may be diagrammed in thε shapε of the Greek letter Χ (chi). You may be able to imagine this X superimposed over the green words above. That X would almost “connect the dots” of the related concepts, in this case, although it doesn’t always work out that visually neatly.

In this form, the references tie together from the outside, moving inward:

“Lord of all” is related to “My Lord.”
“Live” and “die” relate to one another.
“Believe” is tied to “accept,” so this use of “believe” might be seen more as mental assent than trust of the heart.

In the center — and the center of a chiasm constitutes the emphasis — are paradoxical descriptors of the cross. Even this post, taken as a whole, might be seen chiastically: 1) the prelude and postlude are material about the material — its “whys”¹ or motivations, and thoughts about its uses/functions; 2) the explanatory words in Parts A and C are somewhat related; and 3) the center, Part B, is the emphasis.

Postlude

Why¹would I bother to compose a communion meditation in chiastic form? For two reasons, in no particular order:

Because it helps me to structure the thoughts and meditate in my own spirit, and I need all the help I can get.

Because I think forms that use repetition (and quite possibly the chiasm/inclusio/”sandwich structure” is the granddaddy of ’em all) are more likely to result in meaningful retention in the human soul.

Please, feel free to use the meditation above in your own communion time. These words are not protected by copyright law! Rearrange, change, add to them at will, for Kingdom purposes.

=================

¹ Sometimes, form can be a little messy in a biblical chiasm. It doesn’t seem as though biblical authors were always interested in perfect form; rather, primarily, they seem to have been impelled to communicate persuasively, using any rhetorical aids they had at their disposal. In my essay above, the form isn’t perfect, either: there’s a brown Why in the prelude, and a brown “why” in Part C, and a brown why in the postlude, which is probably the only place the word “why” should appear if the form were “perfect.” Like I said, the form can be messy sometimes.

² An interesting site that displays some biblical chiasms may be found here.

[This post continues the lines of thinking begun with blogpost #1000.¹ John 9 has long been a favorite chapter, and it’s not because I memorized it as a child or because it was read at a family funeral. This chapter is of deep impact on me because the story highlights Jesus in a way that will not let me go.]

In restarting an honest study of the gospel of John, I’ve begun in a somewhat different way — a way indicated by my relatively newfound penchant for finding concentric (chiastic) structures in the text. Actually, to be fair, I started with John chapter 9for personal, opportunistic reasons, but I stuck with it for more objective ones, moving outward in both directions from chapter 9, feeling that I might have happened onto the very epicenter of this gospel. If John 9 turns out to be the center-core, or part of said core, it makes sense to become familiar with this immediate, literary context first. So, I’ve re-read chapter 9 and then have read chapters 8 through 11.

Starting in the middle of something flies in the face of how I was taught to process information. Linear thinking, i.e., from left to right and from beginning to end, is more common. (I still feel a twinge of guilt for not reading the introduction of a book, or for selecting a chapter, or for not finishing one I find lacking.) But I suspect I could use a few things flying into my face-shield about now, as I “drive” through the next few weeks and months. So, forget Julie Andrews and the “Do-Re-Mi” song from The Sound of Music. Starting at the beginning (“a very good place to start”) is not best here, now, for me. The middle it is!

Restarting in chapter 8 was an arbitrary choice; I suspect chapters 5, 6, and 7 are anything but disconnected. At any rate, below are a few jottings from this current reading of John 8. (I plan to add to this with notes on chapters 10 and 11, adding some “personal application” as I go.)

8:1-11 — The story of the woman caught in adultery contains details such as the double-stooping and writing on the ground, imbuing it with a ring of truth, as though it were an eyewitness account. This story is not included in the most ancient manuscripts and is almost universally regarded as a later addition, i.e., not original to John. Still, it does no injustice to John’s message(s): it trumpets rebuke of a Pharisaic emphasis on law-keeping, as do other incidents in this gospel. The episode is likely quite true — although possibly, e.g., from Luke’s hand and not John’s — and it is easy to see why some scribe or compiler included it in the middle of John.

8:12 — “light of the world” may be related to a similar expression in 9:5 (same key words, but in a slightly different order, with this former instance stressing the “I am”)

8:13f — the theme of testimony/proof is carried on in chapter 9 (blind man, parents)

The oneness of the Son and Father is a theme in John — chapters 8 and 17, at least.

Are the mentions of dying in sin (8:21, 24) related to the supposed connection between sin and birth defects (9:1-3)?

A terrific adjectival (actually a perfective, active participle, but adjectival in effect) word appears in 8:31, and this may be as significant as the often-quoted “You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” in the next verse. The word is pepisteukotas, and the whole expression might well be rendered “the having-believed-in-Him Jews.” My agenda — and I acknowledge it as such — says that there is a problem here for those who want to paint the Jews as being safe with God by virtue of their affiliation with the originally chosen people group. (For more on this, wait for chapter 10. And keep in mind the intervening material in chapter 9 on spiritual blindness of the Jews/Pharisees.)

In the same breath as they trace ancient heritage to Abraham, the Jews claim never to have been enslaved to anyone. Really? Have they not known of Egypt? Have they not heard of Babylon? Seems like careless hyperbole.

8:37-39 — all the mentions of father, lineage, and Abraham in these verses caused me to look for chiastic structure. I’m not sure it’s present, but “sperm/seed of Abraham” (37a) could be set against “children of Abraham” (39b).

8:41 — the use of porneias here is intriguing, given the topic of 8:1-12. Incidentally, the word for “adultery” in the earlier, disputed passage is a different one, but it’s striking that the topic of sexual immorality is present in both sections.

8:44 is unrelentingly accusing; there’s a contrast set up here between 1) Jesus, whose desires are one with the Father God’s, and 2) the Jews, whose desires are one with the devil’s. Further, this whole section (through 8:47) asserts that truth does not in fact dwell with the Jews but rather dwells in Jesus. Inasmuch as they accepted Him, they accepted truth.

8:53 — I once knew a man who was researching rocket fuels as part of his doctoral program; he could honestly say, “Why, yes, I am a rocket scientist.” Here, Jesus could honestly (and obviously more significantly) say, “Why, yes, I am greater than your father Abraham.” And the Jews, quite significantly sadly, could not see that great reality.

Chapter 9 will of course carry on this theme of the Jews’ inability to see what is right before their eyes.

[This is the 5th in a text-based series on Paul’s letter to the Galatians. The entire series, which includes other types of posts as well, may be accessed through this link.]

If you became overwhelmed with the detail level of the prior two posts, you are not alone — I did, too. Today’s material is no light fare, either, but the rewards for digesting it are great. Today, I’ll be sharing two small-scale textual structures presented by New Testament scholar Greg Fay, and one I found on my own. These are chiastic or inclusio-type structures.

Speaking transparently here … for me, the A sections above are not all that readily seen as book ends, but for Dr. Fay, they made sense as section markers. It is not always the individual words that form relationships; sometimes, it’s an antithesis or a concept or even a sound (think homonym and pun).

Moving inward toward the B sections, the mirroring is clarified: the Greek expressions “works of the law” (ἐξ ἔργων νόμου) and “hearing of/with faith” (ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως) are identical in both 3:2 and 3:5.

The C sections (3:3 and 3:4) are not as conceptually related but are both pointed questions asked of the audience.

The syntax of the even more pointed question in 3:3b may not be apparent in English translations, or even in an interlinear Bible. The center of the chiasm appears to be the word νῦν (now/at present); the time reference. Flanking this single word are the mirror expressions a) spirit vs. flesh and b) having begun vs. completed.

The significance of the above isn’t as great as, say, grace vs. law, the relationship of old and new, and more. However, the structure does make clear the pointed way Paul was addressing the issues in the Galatian region. I (i.e., not necessarily Dr. Fay) might suggest that the thrust here is to move the Judaizing Galatians forcefully to serious consideration of the negative implications of trust in the flesh and law of the Old Covenant.

In writing this post, I have spent nearly an hour refreshing myself on the above chiasm, which is one that I was already convinced of, based on prior study. The lasting reward found in such discoveries is compelling, though — so much so that I think I’ll try a conceptual paraphrase of v.3 on my own here!

Are you so ridiculously deluded?

You started out in the Spirit; that’s established.What about now?
You have a choice to make in the present.What is it going to be now?

Will you make a choice to continue in an ongoing, fleshly system?

Or will you decide to continue on the better voyage you had embarked on, in God’s Spirit?

~ ~ ~

Mini-structure No. 2: 2:15-17 (bc)

I have great respect for New Testament scholars that are able to read Greek fluently and to determine from the primary sources things that are not always clear to English readers. Although most of what I have recently studied and learned from Galatians was a step removed from the sources, I did some work with the Greek text myself, and I was delighted to discover the chiasm below on my own:

A We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles;

B nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law

C but through faith in Christ Jesus, διὰ πίστεως, εἰς Ἰησοῦ| Χριστοῦ

C’ even we have believed in Jesus Christ,εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν,

B’ so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since (that) by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ,

A’ we ourselves have also been found sinners,

Remembering that chiasms and inclusio-/sandwich-type structures are by no means all that the Spirit used, through the conduit of Paul, in communicating to the Galatians, I immediately thought it logical and likely that the propositio (“proposition” to be proved, 2:15-21) would include a more formal, intentional rhetorical device such as the chiasm.

For me, the key to locating the center of this passage was the elementary observation that “Christ Jesus” was mirrored a few words later with “Jesus Christ.” Next, the prepositions jumped out at me; I am learning that Paul sometimes (and perhaps particularly in the early letters to Thessalonika and the Galatian region?) intentionally used prepositions serially in structuring certain emphatic thoughts (cf. 1 Thess 1:10).

Next: there are four different forms of the same verb (justify) found in 2:16-17, and this usage strikes me (I may be off-base here) as emphatic. One can’t help but notice the relationship of the two notions of justification. Being justified by faith in Christ is being established as distinct from being justified by works of the Law. Note the textual mirroring in these expressions from the first and last parts of 2:16:

hoti ou dikaioutai anthropos ex ergon nomou

[that is not justified a man out of works of the law]

hoti ex ergon nomou ou dikaiothesetai pasa sarx

[since out of works of the law will not be justified all flesh]

Important/corresponding elements in the above include

man/flesh

“out of works of the law” (identical above and below)

“not” (ou in Greek) preceding the verb “justified”

the fact that these two are “hoti” (“that”) clauses, which are generally significant in exegesis and have been translated differently — “that” is most often used, but this word may also be rendered as “because” or “since”

Again, the hyper-emphasis of this chiasm is the centrality — both textually and theologically central! — of faith in Jesus Christ/Christ Jesus. Below, for the Greek-literate, is the entire text of 2:16 (the fourth dikaio* verb is found in 2:17). Note the convincing textual mirroring in the bold expressions — “belief of/in Jesus Christ” is set against “Christ Jesus believed.” As with Greg’s chiastic layout of 3:1-9 above, the textual direction of 2:15-17 could be a forecfully personal thrust designed to require the Galatians to enlist, with Paul, on the side of faith in Jesus Christ. The seemingly simple words kai hemeis (and we) are found between the two “faith in Christ” expressions.

Mini-structure No. 3: 3:26-29 (Greg Fay). I had previously highlighted 3:26-29 in this prior, more devotionally oriented post but cannot resist doing so again! Greg Fay has noted that this passage may be the conclusion to which the overall argument is headed (and the center of 3:1-4:10, pre-epistolary “request”).

One additional example of textual structuring to be pointed out here is not chiastic (concentrically formulated) but is rather a repetitive use of a single preposition in a relatively short section of the letter:

Five ὑπὸ (under) phrases from 3:22-4:5

under sin

under law

under a guardian (paidadogos, paidadogon)

under guardians (epitropous) and managers (oikonomous)

under basic forces of the world

under the law

===============

This concludes the more exegetically/textually oriented material on Galatians.

The concepts dealt with in the three concluding posts in this series on Galatians are of serious significance to most of the Christian world. I’m under no illusion that the opinions of the scholar I’ll be quoting (or my own choices of the quotes or emphases of the concepts, for that matter) represent the crux. However, if you’ve merely skimmed most of this material on Galatians to date, I sincerely hope you will pore over the upcoming, three final posts that deal with the relationship of Old and New.

This post brings to a conclusion one of the more ostensibly imbalanced treatments of my 2.5-year blogging history. By that I mean I’m not sure I’ve ever given anywhere near eight posts–more than 4,000 words–on any subject that originally amounted to only 335 words in its entirety.

Because it is impossible, as far as I know, to paste into WordPress a fully formatted, word-processor document, I’ll not be able to share my friend Greg Fay’s chiastic Philemon layout in all its clear, color-coded glory. Instead, I’ll paste in each section in proximity with the other section to which it relates, adding my own comments in italics. In other words, instead of trying to show that vs. 4-5 relate to vs. 20-22 by formatting, I’ll simply put them next to each other, so the syntax will be “all messed up”–but in reality, it may be clarified!

~ ~ ~

§

1-3 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus and Timothy the brother, To Philemon the beloved and our fellow-worker, and Aphia the sister, and Archippus our fellow-soldier, and to the church at your house. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Above, note the personal greetings, of course, and the bookends: the repeated use of the words “grace” and “Lord Jesus Christ.” In addition, a clue is found in the word “fellow.” The Gk. here is not koinonia and does not even use the same prefix, yet the notion of “together” is seen in both these words.

§

4-7

I thank [euxaristo] my God always

making mention of you in my prayers, hearing

of the love

and the faith

which you have

toward the Lord Jesus

and for all the saints,

[praying] that the fellowship of your faith might become active through the knowledge of every good [thing] which is in you for Christ.

For I had much joy and comfort in your love, because the hearts of the saints are refreshed by you, brother.

20-22

Yes, brother, I want some benefit from you in the Lord.
Refresh my heart in Christ.

Confident of your obedience, I have written to you, knowing that you will do even more than what I say.

And, at the same time, also prepare for me the guest room.
For I hope that through your prayers, I will be freely given [xaristhasomai] to you.

The emboldened words show the bookends here: xaristhasomai and eucharisto. Precise, literal translation is often difficult, and these words are no exceptions, which is why English-readers almost never perceive this connection.

Looking at v. 5 now, in the first indented set, the (implied) praying is a connection. As mentioned in a prior post, the construction of this mini-chiasm in v. 5 introduces ambiguity: love is typically thought of as horizontal, i.e., toward other saints/Christians, while faith is held in the Lord Jesus. Here, the converse may also be a possibility.

The “benefit” Paul desires in 20 relates to the refreshing of hearts in 7; further on this point, the hearts of the saints become connected to the refreshing of Paul’s heart in 20. Also, note the connection to v. 12–Onesimus is Paul’s heart.

§

8-9

Therefore, having much boldness in Christ to order you to do what is proper,
on account of love,
I rather appeal to you,
being as I am, Paul, an old man, and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus.

17-19

If, therefore, you consider [have] me as a partner, receive him as [if he were] me.
And if he’s done you any wrong or owes you anything, charge it to me.
I, Paul, am writing with my own hand, “I will pay it back”—

lest I remind you that you owe me your very self

These parallel sections begin with “therefore” (Gk. “inferential particles” –G.F.). Here, Paul has emphasized personal aspects—his age, his captivity, his own hand, and his name. There also seems to be a sort of financial connection—“on account of love” (8) being related structurally to what Onesimus may or may not owe to Philemon, and what Philemon “owes” to Paul (18-19).

The nature of the appeal Paul makes is in evidence here, as well: it is based primarily on relationship and not on authority, although an apostolic “authority clause” is also present (8).

§

10-12

I appeal to you for my child
who was born to me while I was in chains, Onesimus—

the one formerly useless to you
but now useful to you and to me—

whom I am sending to you,
this one, he is my heart,

16

no longer as a slave, but above a slave,

a beloved brother,

especially to me, but how much more to you,
both in the flesh and in the Lord.

These passages are exceedingly significant! As I’ve indicated previously, the delay tactic is clearly seen in v. 10 as Paul “waits” before finally mentioning Onesimus’s name. The connection between 10 and 12 is clear: Onesimus is Paul’s spiritual child and is also his “heart,” both depictions pointing up a rather extreme personal attachment. The attachment is further borne out in the last phrase of 16: both physical/human and spiritual relationship are referenced.

Back to 10-12 now . . . moving inward, the next sections show a kind of physical direction—Onesimus’s having come to Paul, so he could be spiritually begotten, and then his being sent away from Paul to Philemon. This travel appears to me to foreshadow the overall thrust of the letter, which will be seen even more clearly in the next section.

The pun on Onesimus’s name (11) is more than a play on words; it hints at a spiritual directive, which, again, will hence be seen. That Onesimus would to this point be seen as useless to Philemon is no surprise; after all, the slave Onesimus ran away and probably stole. Yet despite his earlier wrongs, Onesimus has a new identity and is now useful, which is the meaning of his name. This new identity is seen in the related passage (center of 16): put plainly, he is now a brother. The expression “beloved brother” seems to cap the commendation of the “new” Onesimus to Philemon, in case there could be any doubt at this point.

One more item in this marvelous pairing . . . note the chiastic relationship of the concept of chains, both for Paul (10) and in Onesimus’s former slave relationship (16a).

And now we move to the final section. Considered in a western, linear fashion, this whole presentation would be assumed to be messed up; I’m ending with the center. But seen as Paul (and the Spirit of God!) intended, this coming “center” is really the end of the line. . . .

§

13-15

whom I would like to have kept [to have] for myself,
so that he might minister to me for you in the chains of the gospel.

But without your consent, I did not want to do anything,

so that not according to constraint your good thing might be but according to free-will.

For perhaps for this reason he was separated from you for an hour,
so that you might have him back forever,

There is more than one way to delineate and organize these verses, but the differences are not ultimately all that significant, in my estimation. I have chosen 14b as the center of the letter’s overall structure; one other possibility has vss. 13-14 forming a longer center.

In the outer phrasings of 13-15 there is a sense of ownership of Onesimus–first, Paul’s desire to have “kept” the new brother (hold that thought). Then in 15, first there is the lack of ownership that resulted from Onesimus’s having run away . . . followed closely by a new proposition from Paul: that Philemon could now newly, more deeply, possess relationship with Onesimus, their new brother.

Note also in 13-15 that there are three “so that” (Gk. ‘ina) clauses. What seems apparent—and this is based as much on the whole of the letter’s message as on verses 13-15a in particular—is that the middle instance (the “so that” expression in 14b) stands at the epicenter of the letter’s single, overall chiastic structure.

Paul is asking not only for Philemon to accept Onesimus as a brother, but he is asking more. He is asking that Philemon do the previously unthinkable. He is asking that Philemon enable Onesimus to continue ministering to Paul for the sake of evangelization.[1]

Paul is asking, in 14b, that Philemon willingly (operative word!), lovingly release Onesimus back to Paul. Onesimus is now a personified “good thing,” and Philemon’s “good thing” will be to release, of his own will, Onesimus to return to Paul.

~ ~ ~

At the time he wrote this letter, Paul could have been captive in such a city as Ephesus (not in Rome until his second imprisonment)[2]. A few years down the road, someone named Onesimus was a leader in the church in Ephesus. I like to think that this was the case, and that Onesimus had in fact been released to live in Ephesus with Paul for a time, remaining there for the rest of his life. Having come across the theory that Onesimus might have been influential in having the letter to Philemon included in subsequent collections of scripture, I might further theorize that if Onesimus lived out his days in just such a central city, where he clearly would have first- and second-hand knowledge of the letter to the Ephesians and the both letters to Timothy, not to mention the ones to Philemon, Colossians (and Laodiceans), it would be easy to believe that Onesimus was uniquely used by the Lord in the process of collection an ultimate canonization of many of Paul’s writings.

To close this study of Philemon, I will share a quotation from Greg Fay’s book-in-progress on reading scripture. In the following, Greg does what I believe he has the right to do, having exegetically, soundly interpreted the scripture: he applies it to current day. I hope that I, together with all those I contact in the Kingdom, will be true to God’s scriptures–not applying them carelessly, but seeking earnestly to uncover their original contexts and intended messages. Then we may apply the scripture to our current-day situations!

I want extreme community. I want to participate in it, which means I want to know, respond to, and share the grace of God in Christ. I want to have faith in the Lord Jesus and be a lover of all saints, regardless of skin-color, social-status, or savings account. I want to treat those who have wronged me with the depth of refreshing faith and love that Paul asks of Philemon—an active sharing of my faith that will help them find real the extreme community of Christ that begins to share in Christ’s own love and com­munity with the Father. I won’t always feel like it, and I will sometimes fail miserably. But God’s word spoken to us through the book of Philemon envisions and calls for no less.

. . .

From Philemon—among other things—the word of God is

love beyond boundaries,

forgiveness beyond hurts,

community beyond differences, and

purpose beyond failures.

Now, read Philemon again, and seek to live it as you follow Christ.

– Gregory L. Fay, PhD, Inkblotitis: How To Read the Bible to Miss Get God’s Point (manuscript)

[1] The only ambiguity for me in this choice resides in 15a, where the expression “might have him back forever” might be interpreted in more than one way. My current choice is that this means “Philemon, even though you won’t have him physically forever, you now have a lasting, eternal relationship with Onesimus, and this will enable you to do, in good conscience and in love for me, what I am asking.”

[2] The likes of F.F. Bruce have written about such possibilities. Caesarea has also been considered an option for the place of Paul’s captivity. Scholars are divided on this question.

You are explicitly, intentionally invited to save this non-copyrighted material, and/or to e-mail it to others you think might be interested.

(continued)

The literary technique of “delay”–not a technique to which I’ve ever given much thought as a writer–figures in to this letter prominently. I understand that Shakespeare did it with Hamlet, and this excerpt from a commentary on Revelation finds the technique employed by John in Rev. 11:1-13. In Philemon, delay is seen, first, as Paul gives some details and background information before making his formal Request. One reads a full third of the letter, for example, and Onesimus has not yet been mentioned! The Request itself doesn’t come until verse 17.

Moreover, identifiable elements of the Request are actually separated by quite a few words, and even by verses/paragraphs—a fact that doesn’t often surface in English renderings. As Greg Fay has proposed, this “delay” gives Paul time “to prepare Philemon’s heart and soften his reaction.”

The delay in the wording of verse 10—as significant, it seems to me, as the larger-scale delay mentioned above—is rarely seen. Note, for instance, the inadequate RSV:

I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.

And the equally inadequate, although more verbose, NLT:

My plea is that you show kindness to Onesimus. I think of him as my own son because he became a believer as a result of my ministry here in prison.

Neither is the original delay technique seen in the more refined, but no more true, NIV:

I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains.

Delay does, however, come across in Young’s Literal Translation and in the 1901 American Standard Version. These are more true to the original Greek:

I entreat thee concerning my child—whom I did beget in my bonds—Onesimus (YLT)

I beseech thee for my child, whom I have begotten in my bonds, Onesimus (ASV)

Being a fan of the dash in English writing, I’m partial to Young’s translation. The dash effectively sets up the eventual mention of Onesimus’s name. This delay in mentioning his name might seem to be a minor point, but when one considers the psychological and spiritual significance of the moment—that first moment—when Philemon read the sentence in Greek, it would be difficult to overestimate the impact of the wording.

The phrase “every good thing” in v. 6 is not insignificant. Since an important textual relationship is not immediately seen, I would draw attention to the connection between “good thing” in v. 6 and the same phrase in v. 14. The latter instance, as will be seen in tomorrow’s post, is smack-dab in the center of the letter’s chiastic structure, which makes it a key hermeneutical point.

Is there know­ledge of some newgood thing (“every” in v. 6 seems to imply that there might be something still lacking in Philemon’s knowledge) in Christ that might help or motivate Philemon’s fellowship of faith to become active? Paul has yet to explain what the specific good thing is, remember. But he soon does share: it is the knowledge of a new child of God—one who formerly was useless, but not anymore. It’s good for the community of Christ. It’s good for Philemon. It has been very good for Paul.

A wonderful pun–again, not seen in English–jumps out of the Greek text of v. 20: ONAIMEN is the word for “benefit,” and the spelling of Onesimus’s name is ONESIMON–a sort of etymological 1st cousin! The meaning of the man’s name, by the way, is “useful”–see v. 11, and perhaps begin to consider the chiasm formed by verses 10-12, which has both “useless” and “useful” in the center.

Tomorrow’s blogpost, which is already in progress, should be my final one on Philemon. Eight posts on a short letter matches the number of small-group sessions we enjoyed in studying it communally! The final installment will present the text with respect to the chiastic arrangement: not in “verse” order, but with the related sections shown in immediate succession . . . and with a few more comments that I hope will help to exegete and elucidate.

You are explicitly, intentionally invited to save this non-copyrighted material, and/or to e-mail it to others you think might be interested.

. . . continued . . .

Because I don’t have much time today, but because I want to stay on track with this wrap-up study, I’m going to offer here only a few words and questions (not intended as an exhaustive list) that I/we find to merit further inquiry. The following words seem to be especially significant:

saint

koinonia

adelphon, agapeton

heart and bowels opposite love (consider the implications of 1) Philemon’s having refreshed Paul’s heart, and 2) Onesimus’s now being now Paul’s heart

the historical (Greek) textual variant—“in you” vs. “in us” v. 6

And now, a few questions, in addition to the ones posed in previous blogposts:

Who is said to be a “beloved brother”?

Do you think this is more an individual or community letter? Of whom does Paul expect something?

How does Paul’s captivity affect relate to purpose of letter? (And, as a side note, where do you think Paul was held or imprisoned at this time? Quite a few scholars do not assume this was one of the Roman imprisonments at the time of this writing.)

What is the relationship of Philemon’s faith and the Request Paul makes?

Would implicit elements of this letter have been as implicit to the first reader(s)?

You are explicitly, intentionally invited to save this non-copyrighted material, and/or to e-mail it to others you think might be interested.

. . . continued . . .

Here are more textual discoveries, notables, and inquiries into the fascinating text of Philemon.

Note the use of the word “brother” in both v. 7 and v. 20. Further on the relationship between these two verses: the joy, comfort, and refreshing of the hearts (all in 7) may be related to the benefit Paul desires from Philemon and the refreshing of his heart (20).

The relationship between Paul and Philemon, whom he refers to as “beloved one,” is the basis for Paul’s logic, his request, and his expectation. Philemon is beloved (1) and Onesimus is beloved (16), too. Remember how shocking this would all be to Philemon as he read the letter. The very idea that a runaway slave who had likely stolen was deemed “beloved”!

Note further the “love” theme:

Philemon loves the saints (5).

Paul has experienced Philemon’s love (7).

As Paul is now “elderly” and a prisoner, he is in a position to receive love—“ images that amplify the application of love and present Paul as someone who should be respected, listened to, and perhaps ministered to or helped” (G. Fay).

We might ask why the latter portion of v. 9?Why might Paul express himself & describe himself in this way? As Greg has suggested, “Perhaps there’s more to the intentions of the letter than meets the eye at this point.”

The thanksgiving and petition in 4 and 9, respectively, are common Pauline markers, delineating text sections and/or showing points of emphasis.

Referring again to yesterday’s sermonette on v. 6–could the expression “fellowship of faith” be intentionally ambiguous? Remember the possible, subtextual ambiguity in the the chiasm of v. 5 (love for others and faith toward Jesus / faith toward others and love of Jesus). Might one of the thrusts here be that the community of Philemon’s faith and love must become energized/activated toward Onesimus? Must koinonia extend to Onesimus as it does to Paul, since Onesimus is Paul’s “heart” (12)?

You are explicitly, intentionally invited to save this non-copyrighted material, and/or to e-mail it to others you think might be interested.

Anyone who doubts that a small group could spend eight weekly sessions studying Philemon would also logically doubt that someone could “wrap up” this study in more than a few paragraphs. Believe it or not, the fourth installment of this “wrap-up” will not be the last! I’m only calling this whole thing “wrap-up” because for me, it is wrapping up a more personal series of studies with friends. In the blogosphere, this is becoming more of a bona fide (although largely by proxy) exegetical study than a wrap-up, I suppose.

In the following textual discoveries and notables in the text of Philemon–for which I am again indebted, almost entirely, to my friend Dr. Greg Fay–chiastic structural relationships are assumed. Let anyone who doubts the significance of the presence of such structures be convinced!

In v. 4 — “thank” is eucharisto. In v. 22 — “freely given” is “charisthasomai.” This connection is not often evident in English renderings. This pairing of verses also both employs the word “prayers.”

I haven’t yet seen a clear, chiastic connection between v. 5 and v. 21 or anything down there toward the end of the letter. However, v. 5 itself may involve implicit concepts as well as what’s on the surface: love is structurally tied to “all the saints,” and faith is tied to “the Lord Jesus.” Yet, note Greg’s inquiry related to the possible ambiguity in the ordering of the words: “So could the circular shape intentionally blur the lines? Either way, the implication is telling.” By this he means that we may also consider that we have love toward the Lord Jesus and, in a sense, faith in our fellow saints. This latter possibility may be seen to connect to the overall message of the letter, as Paul is expressing an implicit faith in Philemon and, by extension, in the house-church community–faith that they will do what he asks with regard to Onesimus.

Further etymological connections include the expression “in Christ,” found both in v. 6 and v. 20.

Verse 6 merits special consideration since it has often been misused and poorly translated. Let it be clear that this verse has nothing directly to do with evangelistic efforts. Paul is not here suggesting that Philemon, or anyone else among the Colossian saints, “share his faith” with an unbeliever. The intended import of this passage becomes more clear as the reader becomes more familiar with the thrusts of the letter; it seems to me that Paul is hinting here at what he will later suggest more strongly, if not explicitly: that Philemon’s faith-partnership with Paul would become active in a very specific way regarding Onesimus. I have wondered, then, whether this “activeness” (root word is energes, and the expression in v. 6 might well be rendered “that your faith-partnership will become energized …”) relates to the strong, influential request for active response in v. 21: ” . . . knowing that you will do even more than I what I say.”

“Every good thing” in v. 6 appears to be a direct reference to Onesimus, as it is in v. 14. Previously, Onesimus was a bad thing; now, in Christ, is not to be considered a good one!

You are explicitly, intentionally invited to save this non-copyrighted material, and/or to e-mail it to others you think might be interested.

. . . continued from yesterday . . .

This beautiful letter is of course about Philemon and Onesimus, but it is about more than the two of them.It is about grace, about Christian togetherness, about relationship and identity in Jesus, and more. Its inclusion in the canon appears to be no accident!

Looking at the opening greeting can give us some important, initial clues as to the meaning and intent. Paul does not just say “Paul to you, greetings.” Adjectives and expansions of the basic form give us clues into the situation and purposes of the letter. Paul’s letters are, by the way, not “epistles” in the truest sense. They are letters, and by that I mean they were 1) occasional and 2) non-formal-literary in nature. They were intended for a specific audience and not for broad publication. The structure of the writing tends to indicate that they were personal letters and not carefully crafted orations that Paul thought would be widely read. The occasional aspect, when phrased that way, may get some of our backs up, because the word seems to downplay the significance of the writing. In using the word “occasional,” though, I in no way intend to denigrate the purpose–me gonoito! Rather, I am attempting to help myself and others to hone in on the specific situation–the historical context–that gave rise to, or occasioned, the letter.

The community dimension is implied in the address to Philemon, (his wife) Apphia, (his son) Archippus,¹ and their house church.

Greg Fay has pointed out these things regarding the introduction to the letter, which is found in verses 1-7.

“A clear, repetitive emphasis on community and partnership in the cause of Christ thus fills the Address.”

“Close scrutiny of the language of Philemon as a whole reveals the concept of Christian relationship or community to be the pivotal idea on which the theology of the letter depends. Paul clearly and forcefully identifies Onesimus as having a new, spiritual son-like, useful, emotional, vital, beloved, serving relationship with himself—in other words, Onesimus is now a devoted Christian. Paul shares a similar relationship with Philemon.”

“As Paul will explain, Onesimus has been reborn and has become a child of Paul and, more importantly, a child of Christ—he is now a “saint.” If Philemon loves all the saints, he will now also love Onesimus, necessarily. The argument turns on Onesimus’s change of identity (“. . . my child Onesimus, whose father I became . . . Formerly, he was useless to you, but now . . .”) There is a then and a now, and they are not the same. The implication is unassailable and unyielding. But notice that Paul doesn’t draw the implication here; he simply builds the literary and theological context for the purposes of his letter.

To be continued . . .

—————————————

¹ That Apphia and Archippus had some special standing in the household is clear. That they were wife and son, respectively, to Philemon is not explicit. Archippus is also mentioned in the letter to the Colossians.